Skepticism

EVENTS

Funny…he’s not shutting up!

Hmmm. I should have thought the powerful voices of communications experts shrieking at Richard Dawkins to hide under his bed would have had some effect, but no…he’s gone ahead and written his review of Expelled. And lo, in the camp of the Framers, there was much wailing and weeping and grinding of teeth, and rending of garments, and epic despair, because surely this will cause the destruction of Science.

The truth is that you could not sign up for the “private screenings” at the regular Expelled or Getexpelled websites. The site you got to at the latter was:

rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled

But that only had events up into January.

The “private screenings” website is this one:

rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled

It used to have the remaining screenings. It is most likely the one that PZ Myers used, and it was not easy to find (I found it and put it onto Pharyngula, AtBC, Atheistnetwork, FCS, PT, and Talkorigins). But in any case, it was out on the web and the search engines, only not so easy to find as to merely go to the Expelled website.

Richard Dawkins writes:Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mathis instructed some uniformed goon to evict Myers while he was standing in line with his family to enter the theatre, and threaten him with arrest if he didn’t immediately leave the premises… did he not know that PZ is one of the country’s most popular bloggers, with a notoriously caustic wit, perfectly placed to set the whole internet roaring with delighted and mocking laughter?

You know, as I read this, something occurred to me regarding the reasoning behind Mathis’ “bungling incompetence,” as Dawkins calls it. I wonder if Mathis made a serious blunder in his assumptions on what PZ’s reaction to being thrown out of the theater would be.

He just made a film where all the academics are whining and looking pathetic about being rejected, humiliated, and tossed unceremoniously out of academia and the Halls of Science. He has been surrounding himself with people playing the poor-me victim card, claiming ignominous oppression and unfair suppression.

What then if Mathis assumed that PZ Myer’s reaction would not be “delighted and mocking laughter,” but what he was used to — whimpering bellyaching. And then he could use that to make a point.

PZ was to have gone to Phayngula to lick his wounds. “People, I have sad news. I am so ashamed and humiliated. I was kicked out of the theater when I went to see Expelled. I have never heard of someone doing something like that to an academic like me. It felt awful.”

And then Mathis and his publicists would go in for the kill:

Ah-ha! Now the scientist knows JUST HOW IT FEELS! What has been done to other academics was done to him! And he complains, too. How ironic is THAT??”

Instead, PZ reacts with amusement. Extreme amusement. And, worse, there is the Dawkins angle, which no, Mathis had not been expecting when he decided to play a game and toss PZ out. If PZ whines, he wins on tit for tat. If PZ creates a nasty, messy scene, he wins on ‘look at the immoral fascist-like atheist temper.’ But instead, PZ laughs and laughs, and with Dawkins in the theater Mathis just looks like a fool.

More I think about it, the more I think Mathis underestimated PZ’s sense of humor about things, and how he would not be mortified by the incident, but jubilant. He’s been around too many pretentious professorial sob-sisters. He thought they were all like that.

Sean Carroll has a well reasoned post on the kerfuffle over at Cosmic Variance:

Sure, it’s pretty good.

But I think he might be agreeing too much with Mooney. This incident is virtually an earthquake on these blogs, with barely a ripple beyond. I think that’s good, because if they were getting a lot of free publicity from this I would not be happy.

And anyway, why have they guarded their boring movie from competent critics? It’s because it is boring (seriously, does anyone think that Dawkins and Myers being interviewed about science and God is going to appeal to the general public? No matter that people here are interested…), it’s dishonest, and it’s largely an incoherent and unevidenced attack on evolution. Dawkins rips the lid off of their carefully-orchestrated PR campaign, and as the film is increasingly advertised this fact will filter out to potential viewers.

The hoped-for appeal beyond the ignorant and the hopelessly religiously biased types is that there is this “new science” of ID which is being “suppressed.” Any questioning of “Darwinism” is supposedly “suppressed,” indeed. As it happens, Dawkins, one of the best-known scientists of our time, now can directly respond to a movie that he has seen, and point out exactly where they are wrong.

They didn’t want that. Between Dawkins and NYT, much of the media will tend to follow the points that the film is utter bilge and boring, and that they are trying to suppress criticisms in the bargain. Let Mathis and other liars crow about the “free publicity,” the fact is that this publicity undercuts the appeal that this movie is supposed to have.

No, it won’t stop church groups from busing in to the theaters. But the “mystery” of this dreck is being exposed, and I suspect that rather fewer fence-sitters are going to think that there is something interesting in this movie.

You’re confusing framing with the argument as to whether or not one should do anything to draw notice to creationists. But then you’re confused about framing (everybody does it, whether it’s called “baggage” or “connotation” or “framing” — it’s just how people perceive your work, and how you can improve that). As for drawing attention to creationists, that should be, I would think obviously, depend on the circumstances and the abilities of the folks involved. In this case, I think it’s a very good idea.

Sastra @#12, I’d been wondering the same about Mathis’ motivation, and I think you’ve provided a good hypothesis for what he might have been thinking.

But that’s what makes Mathis’ blunder even more delicious! I certainly don’t know PZ except for what I glean from his writing, but I can’t imagine him doing anything other than what he did: run to the nearest internet access, chuckling in amused bewilderment all the way, because if he’d waited until he got back to his hotel to share this hilarious event with his readers his head would’ve positively a’sploded!

While I have no proof that your hypothesis is completely accurate, I want to go out on a limb and say I think you probably hit the nail so hard on the head that it split the board in two, shot through six more feet of plywood and got lodged in the foreman’s hardhat. Thankfully the foreman is ok.

Wow, Dawkins positively thrashes Mathis and the movie. So much for the statement that Dawkins is “well behaved” thus ok’d to see the movie. No, I’m afraid Dawkins isn’t refered to “Darwins Rottweiler” because he plays fetch and rolls over for religion and intelligent design proponents.

Yikes! That film sounds even worse than I imagined. I definitely won’t be going to see it if it ever comes out.

I don’t think people are going to forget the “Good Friday Massacre of Mark Mathis’ Reputation” when the internet roared with “delighted and mocking laughter” any time soon. Quite the public relations debacle!

This is sort of tangental to the whole ExpectoratedExpelled debacle, but:

One of the things that Dawkins mentions is Crick’s idea of Directed Panspermia. I hadn’t heard of Directed Panspermia until a creationist first claimed that Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible. Since I was naturally sceptical and curious about this assertion, I did some research.

Well, the original paper (Crick and Orgel (1972)) is online, and can be read here (only 6 pages, too):

It is, as it ought to be, a very tentative and highly qualified hypothesis. Note that it makes suggestions on experiments that might be done.

Were they in fact only semi-serious in proposing the idea? I dunno — but I think both would agree that there are probably more useful research plans for discovering the evidence for the origins of life.

SciBlogs is getting a little self-referential with the cycles of Nisbet vs Everybody grudge matches.

New fuel for the fire: Jon Marks (Yale, book: Human Biodiversity)

Jon Marks:

“So here is my proposition. Scientific racism is worse than un-scientific creationism. After all, nobody was ever killed or maimed or sterilized in the name of creationism.

So as we look towards the upcoming Darwin anniversary (bicentennial of birth, 150 years since the Origin) maybe we need to think less about the creationists – the external enemies – and think more about the erosion from within. The creationists can’t embarrass science; only scientists can do that.”

A vast conspiracy by evil scientists? To suppress scientific evidence that god_did_it?

Just imagine the scope of the international effort to co-ordinate such nefarious plans, all over a time span of centuries. There’s only one possible explanation.

Satanic Forces. In the guise of mild mannered professors, these soul thieves are indoctrinating our youth and enrolling them in the fight against Truth & Light Inc.

I draw your attention to Hex genes. That’s right, HomEoboX genes. These are used in morphogenesis and control whether an experimental animal grows up to be a frog or a monkey in a suit. Witchcraft, by any other name.

I find the whole ‘Lord Privy Seal’ thing very, very funny indeed, it brings to mind loads of shoddy documentaries I’ve seen over the years. I’ll know how to describe this ‘trick’ in future – see, it’s not just science you learn from these guys!

I’m another one who thinks Sastra has got it spot-on. Not only are they incapable of making a half-decent documentary or doing a vague amount of research, they can’t even glean a moderately accurate character assessment from one of the most prolific bloggers on the net. What a terrible shame…

I had a hard time getting in as well. Is it kosher to publish it on another host so people can read it? I’ve copied it on a page on my server that I will gladly share with others, but only if it’s OK to do so. I imagine that in a few days the Dawkins site will be back up, but right now they are likely having bandwidth issues.

Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.

For the producers of this movie to continue this Big Lie tying evolution and Nazis together is an irony almost too big to comprehend, given that this is precisely how Nazi propaganda worked. In a rich field of creationist ironies, this may be the elephant in the room. They are projecting onto their enemies the very thing they are guilty of. […]

We must continue to discuss this, to air it out, to show these people for what they are. Like any noisome and foul thing you find under a rock, exposure to sunlight is the best cure.

Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.

Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.

For the producers of this movie to continue this Big Lie tying evolution and Nazis together is an irony almost too big to comprehend, given that this is precisely how Nazi propaganda worked. In a rich field of creationist ironies, this may be the elephant in the room. They are projecting onto their enemies the very thing they are guilty of. […]

We must continue to discuss this, to air it out, to show these people for what they are. Like any noisome and foul thing you find under a rock, exposure to sunlight is the best cure.

Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.

By way of example, Ruse could have chosen any of a number of current theories. He chose just one (it would have taken too long to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties such a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of crystals in inorganic clays. … Stein just loved it. Mud! MUD! The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a malevolent and clandestine agenda. Stein kept returning, throughout the film, to the phrase “on the backs of crystals”, and the sycophantic audience in the Minneapolis cinema dutifully tittered every time.

But … but …

Genesis 2: 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

… watered dust is …

Is there some correlation between fundamentalism and irony impairment?

I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)?

Have you watched American TV lately? Dull, artless and amateurish doesn’t mean people won’t watch it and, if advertizing revenues are any guide, swallow just about anything. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t warn about the dangers of cigarette smoke or shoddy and dangerous cars.

Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

Well, yes. But, unfortunately, it may be too late to save the brains damaged by dreck like Expelled.

I posted a comment to Dawkins’ review, mainly critiquing those who carped at Dawkins’ use of certain words. It’s taking a while to appear over there, so I’m cross-posting it here, in case I did something wrong in my attempt to comment:

Dr. Dawkins:

This was all well said, and all well worth saying.

To the critics here:

Sure, take your shots at Richard Dawkins, and feel like you’re accomplishing something. Join right in with those who find this sedate British academic, practically the living definition of civilized, as some sort of violent radical, too strident for the field of public discourse.

But realize that by so doing you’re joining in with the Destroyers, the people who profit from lies, and take pleasure in keeping the lot of us ignorant and confused.

They sit up there, anti-freedom, anti-mind, anti-civilization, and all too often even anti-life – for the sake of MONEY – and you can’t even manage to notice them.

You set these killers of mind – Ben Stein and his lying cronies – and Dr. Dawkins on opposite pans of the scale, and you leap to see DAWKINS’ side weighed down with mistakes, failing to notice the vast murderous mass that sits on the other pan.

If the first thought to pop into your head in cases like this is that you think Dawkins wasn’t POLITE ENOUGH, you’ve basically surrendered to them.

It’s like you’d see that brave Chinese kid stand in front of those tanks in Tianmen Square … you’d look at the ominous line of tanks, and then you’d look at the kid, and you’d see that he looked clumsy or dorky, and you’d leap to criticize him for that, missing the point that there is no set protocol for facing the machinery of death with nothing more than individual guts.

FIRST, these things have to be fought. The lies, the death, the exploitation, and the people who shepherd them all into our lives.

We can worry about assigning scores to each individual performance much, much later. If Dawkins occasionally fumbles – IF IF IF – I see it as eminently excusable. If he does it a thousand times, but continues to make an honest effort, I’m willing to make allowances. Because I know what he faces; I know what we all face:

This is not some little tea party gaffe on the part of the people who made this film. Stein and cronies are doing this in full knowledge that they’re lying. They just happen to care more about the money they hope to make from pulling their little con than they do about the malignant side effects the film will have – a stab to the heart of truth and understanding, a stab at human knowledge itself.

I couldn’t do a tenth of Dr. Dawkins is doing, and I suspect few of the critics here are any more accomplished than me.

If you can’t care enough to join in the fight, sit back and watch. But don’t go armchair-quarterbacking someone who’s devoting his life to the hugely important endeavor of winkling out the truth, and then defending it, every day of his life, against those who hate it and want it gone because it’s not profitable to them personally.

I couldn’t be more pleased with Dr. Dawkins than if I’d invented him myself. He and PZ Myers are heroes, far as I’m concerned.

That was so beautiful Hank. Thanks for posting it in both places. I wish I would have thought of something like that to write. I also have been annoyed at the commenters on Dawkins’ site who are armchair quarterbacks.

Nonetheless, I suspect the reality is slightly less complicated. IMO, Sastra’s assessment of Mathis’s baseline mindset is accurate, but I doubt Mathis thought (or cared) much about what PZ’s reaction would be. He assumed that any reaction of any kind would benefit the Expelled!* PR campaign (which is why they’re all claiming that it has). I think he simply didn’t want PZ in the theatre with his ID-sympathetic audience and, more importantly, he didn’t want PZ to be the fly in the post-viewing Q&A ointment. I also believe Kristine’s claim that Mathis appeared to be very surprised to see Dr. Dawkins at the Q&A, and that he is trying to conceal the egg on his face by lying about having intentionally let RD in despite the “do not admit” order next to his name.

That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time).

Lessee, what else… Oh yeah:

Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible.

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” ~ Clarke. :-)
_______________________________________
* jazz hands

I think Glen D has the right of this situation. Sometimes we all embrace the false dichotomy . . . on the right, PZ and the defenders of truth — on the left, the Liars for Jesus.

But there is a huge middle out there, what Glen calls the “fencesitters” and I call the pewsitters, who don’t have a strong opinion either way. It’s hard for me to imagine it, but those folks don’t know much about the issue . . . whereas we’re all passionate about it. (The other side, of course, is just crazy.)

The folks in the middle are vulnerable to the “teach the controversy” lie because they’re basically fair-minded — but they don’t want to be associated with dolts. Anything that works to expose the lyin’, cheatin’, delusional, and incompetent DI and all its damned works is a WIN for us. And “Expelled from EXPELLED” does that in spades.

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” ~ Clarke

Heh. Well, yes.

But the point, which I perhaps did not make clear, was that Francis Crick had actually said no such thing, but merely speculated scientifically — much as did Richard Dawkins. And Crick’s speculation was twisted into something it wasn’t, much as Dawkins’ speculation was by Ben Stein.

“When a Creationist says anything at all about science, he is almost certainly wrong. The only questions that remain is whether he is deliberately lying or merely confused, and whether the false statement is original to him, or instead mindlessly repeated from another Creationist source.” ~ Owlmirror

You Canadians may not have seen this American program called Will and Grace, but one of the characters–somewhat flamboyant, it’s safe to say–used to do the *jazz hands* when announcing his one-man shows “Just Jack!” and “Jack 2000!”

If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

Epic scale? Have you visited Youtube? People create videos to celebrate the exceptionally good hamburger they ate that day.

And Dawkins is a professional writer. 3400 words to review the most ambitious creationist movie in the last decade, as well as to point out the buffoonery of its creators, is hardly excessive. He can probably bang that out in an hour or so.

Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney. Olson’s made several comments, the first of which starts out:

Did any of you ever hear about something called the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Do you recall the John Kerry election campaign staff saying, “When the American public hears the truth about John Kerry’s war record …” Do you really think the American public every really heard the truth? Do you really think the American public is going to hear the truth about this film? Sorry, folks, I’m with Chris. …

Last I checked that thread, he’s continued to make additional comments supporting Chris’ position.

I’ve had troubles loading pages at the richarddawkins.net ever since this review was posted? Is their server getting hammered by requests? Is god orchestrating a HDoS attack (Heavenly Denial of Service)?

Good one, #67 – HDoS indeed – i like it! But it may just be an overloaded server. I finally got the article just now, on my sixth or seventh attempt. Just keep trying until you succeed, but let some time pass between attempts, or all the people stampeding to get the article will just stomp on each others’ toes. Now I’ll settle down and enjoy what is bound to be a good read.

I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

I do get it, you’re trying to keep out competent critics who will tell it like it is, while you try to sell this pile of dung to the rubes. You’ve gotten much mindless praise from the believers you’re out to shear yet again, and now you’re trying for damage control when a real review gets out.

We remember the squalling from your shill Ben Stein when an actual movie critic, Roger Moore, also got in after being disinvited.

It’s great fun being a propagandist. If people kick back against your output, you can say that they’re taking it seriously so it must be true. If they don’t, you can say that they’ve got no answer to it, that’s how true it is. Can’t lose!

Except, that is, when you actually have to deal with the consequences of some of the things you say and do – then it gets a bit harder.

Has anyone seen that statement the producers promised on why they kicked PZ out of the showing?

The truth is that you could not sign up for the “private screenings” at the regular Expelled or Getexpelled websites. The site you got to at the latter was:

rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled

But that only had events up into January.

The “private screenings” website is this one:

rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled

It used to have the remaining screenings. It is most likely the one that PZ Myers used, and it was not easy to find (I found it and put it onto Pharyngula, AtBC, Atheistnetwork, FCS, PT, and Talkorigins). But in any case, it was out on the web and the search engines, only not so easy to find as to merely go to the Expelled website.

They have a bewildering proliferation of pages, and I don’t really know why. Apparently, though the “private screenings” site was meant to be more exclusive. But if so, they oughtn’t be putting it on the web for anyone to use.

But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?

@ blf:

Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney.

Good catch, thanks.

Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.

And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.

Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.

So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.

But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?

@ blf:

Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney.

Good catch, thanks.

Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.

And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.

Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.

So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.

I’m ROFLingMAO here. I mentioned Expelledgate a couple of days ago to my good friend, a nonscientist and “recovering Catholic,” and pointed him to a few links on the subject. Since then he’s been giving me infinite grief for having gotten him so fascinated by the whole business that he hasn’t gotten anything done since. Now mind you, this is a guy who almost never spends any significant time on line unless he’s looking for a new video game.

One of his latest comments to me: “I had no idea just how scary those Fundamentalists really are!”